JUDGMENT Sudhir Narain, J.
1. The common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions and they are disposed of together.
2. These writ petitions are directed against the cancellation of the result of the examination held on 17.9.1995 by the respondents. The facts in brief are that the State Govenrment issued Government Order dated 13.9.1994 directing the authorities concerned to make appointment of Urdu Teachers in Senior and Junior Basic Schools run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad in different districts against the post in vacancies mentioned in the chart appended to the Government Order. As for Kanpur Dehat a direction was issued to make appointment of Urdu Teacher against 162 posts. The said Government Order also contained the qualification and the procedure relating to the appoinment of Urdu Teachers.
3. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari respondent No. 1 advertised the post for appointment of 162 Urdu Teacher in the newspaper in August, 1995 inviting the applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher for teaching Urdu. In pursuance of the said advertisement about 1817 candidates applied and admit cards for written examination were issued to them, out of 1817 candidates more than 1200 candidates appeared in the written examination held on 17.9.1995. The names of 122 candidates, who were declared successful in the written examination were posted in the Notice Board of the examination centre on 5.10.1995. These candidates were called for interview on 10.10.1995. The interview was taken by the Selection Committee and it was found that several candidates, who were not even able to write a single line in Urdu were declared successful in the written examination. One candidate Smt. Asha Devi at the time of interview gave in writing that she cannot write Urdu. Another candidate, who was also declared successful in written examination namely Smt. Shushila Devi also could not write a word in in Urdu. One Laxmi Shanker, who was also declared successful in written examination could not write correct Urdu berofe the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee became suspicious and the matter was referred to the District Magistrate/Chairman of the Selection Committee. The District Magistrate/Chairman of the Selection Committee directed the Chief Development Officer and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kanpur Dehat to enquire into the matter and submit their report. The Chief Development Officer and Basic Shiksha Adhikari submitted their detailed report on 13.10.1995 and in their report they clearly by stated that unfair practice was adopted in the written examination.
4. The District Magistrate after considering the reports of the Chief Development Officer as well as the Basic Shiksha Adhikari passed an order on 13.10.1995 cancelling the entire process of selection and written examination held on 17.9.1995 and directed for holding fresh written examination. He also directed that after holding an enquiry Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools and other person involved in unfair practice may be suspended.
5. On 15.10.1995 the news was also published intimating that the written examination held on 17.9.1995 has been cancelled and the written examination shall take afresh on 22.10.1995. The aforesaid writ petitions were filed challenging the cancellation of the examination and against the direction of respondents for holding the fresh examination. This Court passed an order on 22.10.1995 that if an examination for the appointment of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) is held in pursuance of the direction of the respondents, that shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.
6. The written examination was held on 22nd October, 1995 after the cancellation of the written examination, which was already held on 17.9.1995. All the petitioners and other candidates, who had already appeared in the written examination were permitted to re-appear in the written examination. The petitioners appeared in the written examination and those, who were successful in written examination, they were interviewed on 10.1.1996 and the final list has been prepared. Some of the petitioners have failed in the written examination held on 22.10.1995. In writ Nos. 299973 out of 9 petitioners, 6 have failed. Petitioners Nos. 1, 3, 5. 6, 7 and 8 had failed in the written examination, they could not secure minimum passing marks in the written examination.
7. I have heard Sri W.H. Khan, learned Counsel, for the petitioner and Sri S.G. Hasnain, learned Counsel, for the respondents.
8. Learned Counsel, for the petitioner submitted that the entire written examination was cancelled on the report submitted by the Chief Development Officer and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kanpur Dehat. The said report indicates that the unfair practices was adopted by the candidates, who were sitting to Room No. 44 in examination centre. It is contended that if unfair means was adopted by some of the candidates, the entire examination results are not to be cancelled. He has filed a supplementary affidavit and has given the detalis of the roll numbers and room numbers, where the petitioners were permitted to appear in the written examination and they were not sitting in Room No. 44.
9. I have given my anxious consieratlon on this aspect. It is setlted law that if unfair means has been adopted by certain candidates in the examination, the result of the entire examination cannot be cancelled. It is also settled that if there is a mass copying or unfair means adopted in such a large number, as to difficult to find out the particulars of any candidates, who had copied or adpoted unfair means in the examination, considering the entire circumstances, the authority concerned can cancel the entire examination. Some of the candidates, who appeared before the Selection Committee wrote in writing that they cannot write in Urdu. This clearly shows that there was impersonation at the examination centre. The report further indicates that in answer books of the some of the candidates few pages were included later on. It is true that the three candidates who were unable to write anything before the Selection Committee in Urdu appeared in the examination centre from room No. 44. The report, however, does not disclose that the irregularity was committed only in room No. 44. The total number of candidates declared succesful in written examination were 122. It was apparent that unfair means were adopted in the examination. The mere fact that it was detected from the copies of the candidates who were sitting in room No. 44 of the examination centre, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the candidates who appeared in the examination from other rooms cannot be excluded altogeter being affected by irregularities and unfair means adopted in the examination.
10. The irregularity was not only confined to Impersonation, but also stitching of papers and inserting the pages in the answer books of the several candidates. The petitioners, who were declared successful in written examination were given again opportunity to appear in written examination. The petitioners appeared in the written examination, most of them failed and they could not get even the minimum passing marks in the written examination. They are being selected for the post of Assistant Teachers to teach Urdu in the institution, who are to shape the life of the students.
11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Dev Singh and Anr. v. Union of India and anotlver, (1991) 17 Administrative Tribunal Cases 692, wherein the application was filed against the order cancelling the proceedings for selection of Class IV employees for promotion to the post of Clerk. It was held that entire selection proceedings could not have been cancelled merely on the ground that the revaluation of answer books have been ordered by the Officer. If irregularity pertains to a candidates and not to the entire group of selection, it would be unfair and unjust to deprive candidate in respect of whom no irregularities were discovered. In Kanhaiya Lal v. Union of India and Ors., (1987) 4 Administrative Tribunal Cases 83, the panel was cancelled inter alia on the ground that there were certain serious irrregularity committed during the preparation of the selection panel, which the authorities considered no to disclose in the interest of adminitration. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court held that there was no justifiction for cancellation of the panel.
12. In Union of India and Ors. v. Anand Kumar Pandey and Ors., (1994) 5 SCC 663, where the Central Administrative Tribunal had quashed the order of the Railway Recruitment Board cancelling the written examination, the Apex Court held that if the large scale copying was found to have done at examination centre, the Railway Board was justified in cancelling the examination and empanelment of the selected candidates.
13. the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the same examination centre the irregualarity was found in a particular room, therefore, the candidates, who had appeared from that very room only their results should be cancelled. The report indicates that the three candidates, who had appeared before the Selection Committee at the time of interview, they were not able. to write Urdu and copies of those candidates were examined and they were found to have appeared in the examination from room No. 44. of the Examination centre. This itself does not indicate that irregularity was confined only to room No. 44. Some of the candiates wrote before the Selection Committee that they could not write in Urdu, while the copy of such candidates showed that the answers were given in Urdu. Not only certain pages were added to the answer books of some of the candidates, but also impersonation was done. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
14. The parties shall, however bear their own costs.